Bob Chapek backs up using IPs because “if our competitors had our catalog they would do the same thing”

[Chef Mickey]

That isn't what I wrote.

What I wrote was, "There's no such thing as "a fan's perspective" on whether good business decisions are being made."

No, they won't. They'll "eat up" what WDI has been throwing at them because Disney has been "listening" to more reliable information about guest proclivities than what rabid fans say.

Dude, it’s the implication. Anyway, you’re too black and white to have a meaningful discussion. I know the numbers...great job by Disney there. However, I remain skeptical the current strategy is the best for maximizing long term park success.

Disney parks will always be successful, but I think they could be even more successful both in terms of quality and in profitability.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Dude, it’s the implication. Anyway, you’re too black and white to have a meaningful discussion. I know the numbers...great job by Disney there. However, I remain skeptical the current strategy is the best for maximizing long term park success.

Disney parks will always be successful, but I think they could be even more successful both in terms of quality and in profitability.

It always comes back to a general conflict with all the freshly minted “economists” on boards - a lack of consistency. (Apologists for all mousing in wolves clothing)

Quoting widely know textbook or talking point Econ basics with the standoffish “this is always right” dismissal attitude. But also putting Disney on a pedestal.

The two are incompatible in many ways. Either Disney is a business...in which case it is simply about drain the money well as quickly as possible...or it is unique based on its history, success and place in the world.

One means all simple smirk applies - stockholder nonsense and justification for damaging pricing (in particular) on a long term trajectory. That’s cool.

But if the other is true...then their actions are not bound by “it’s a business” dogma. That’s not what got them here and isn’t what will keep them ahead of a pack of other 100% frivolous products. They deal in imagination...that’s their game. Any old suit won’t do.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The nondescript coaster themed to India or whatever was a far better return on investment than any of the franchise mandate projects (Galaxy’s Edge may be the exception). If Disney was just doing what works, they would have at least tried to do more projects like Expedition Everest, but it was rejected as “nondescript” before it even opened.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The nondescript coaster themed to India or whatever was a far better return on investment than any of the franchise mandate projects (Galaxy’s Edge may be the exception). If Disney was just doing what works, they would have at least tried to do more projects like Expedition Everest, but it was rejected as “nondescript” before it even opened.

...I agree in theory.

But it cost a fortune and doesn’t work either. So there is a layer of grease that they used to their advantage.

Part of it was also “regime change”. Everest was really the last thing greenlit by “you know who”...along with the underwhelming mission:space.

It became very fashionable to diss anything done prior...and original ride bashing ended up taking Bob where he wanted to go anyway. And typically...about 10 years later people lay off the dust pipe for a minute and allow their heads to clear to start to notice there’s a downside to it...

The longterm destruction of a coherent theme park...for one.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But it cost a fortune and doesn’t work either. So there is a layer of grease that they used to their advantage.

On a per capita basis it cost less than pretty much everything that has come since and is now an outright bargain. Many of the effects could have been maintained, including the yeti.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

On a per capita basis it cost less than pretty much everything that has come since and is now an outright bargain. Many of the effects could have been maintained, including the yeti.

No I get you...it’s an “innings eater”...but the WDW repeat clientele have such a low bar to meet.

DCA sucked and the DL crowd wouldn’t go...if they built a bad park in Orlando these days they’d buy an “after hours” upsell and line up for 2 hours for a really corny fireworks show.

 

[BlakeW39]

No I get you...it’s an “innings eater”...but the WDW repeat clientele have such a low bar to meet.

DCA sucked and the DL crowd wouldn’t go...if they built a bad park in Orlando these days they’d buy an “after hours” upsell and line up for 2 hours for a really corny fireworks show.

Can I just express my opinion that DCA makes todays Epcot look like Disneyland. Like good God that park is a mess. What even is the theme? It has less of one than DHS and that, is an accomplishment.

Furthermore I feel as if there are better ideas than a theme park in California themed to California. I personally just find that redundant.

 

[BlakeW39]

The nondescript coaster themed to India or whatever was a far better return on investment than any of the franchise mandate projects (Galaxy’s Edge may be the exception). If Disney was just doing what works, they would have at least tried to do more projects like Expedition Everest, but it was rejected as “nondescript” before it even opened.

Well of course. It tells its own story without relying on predetermined narrative, and this tells a story perfect for DAK. We can only hope (imo) for the other three parks to be treated with the respect DAK has been. I have zero clue how that park has held on in the way that it has...

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Can I just express my opinion that DCA makes todays Epcot look like Disneyland. Like good God that park is a mess. What even is the theme? It has less of one than DHS and that, is an accomplishment.

Furthermore I feel as if there are better ideas than a theme park in California themed to California. I personally just find that redundant.

It wasn’t a great idea...so it’s still a long way to go.

I actually think it would just be easier to name it “Disney studio land” or “Hollywood”...and just embrace an overall entertainment theme. The real Hollywood sucks so that’s not much of a worry on branding.

They did SOME work to repair DCA...but not enough. It’s an ok park now but you can still see the cheapness in places.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Well of course. It tells its own story without relying on predetermined narrative, and this tells a story perfect for DAK. We can only hope (imo) for the other three parks to be treated with the respect DAK has been. I have zero clue how that park has held on in the way that it has...

This is where you need to temper your praise of dak. It’s a decent park...but it is not the poster child of cohesion...and it still hasn’t been built out to the original design level...which is a fundamental mistake Disney financed parks have been making ever since they spent the mint on EPCOT. You can’t do a uniform theme and then start slashing...it doesn’t work

 

[BlakeW39]

This is where you need to temper your praise of dak. It’s a decent park...but it is not the poster child of cohesion...and it still hasn’t been built out to the original design level...which is a fundamental mistake Disney financed parks have been making ever since they spent the mint on EPCOT. You can’t do a uniform theme and then start slashing...it doesn’t work

It is the poster child of cohesion.

It isn't perfect, but that isn't from being incohesive; that is from being underbuilt.

But every element of the park fits the park 100% (even Dinoland 'fits'... it's just bad.)

It wasn’t a great idea...so it’s still a long way to go.

I actually think it would just be easier to name it “Disney studio land” or “Hollywood”...and just embrace an overall entertainment theme. The real Hollywood sucks so that’s not much of a worry on branding.

They did SOME work to repair DCA...but not enough. It’s an ok park now but you can still see the cheapness in places.

I'm not saying DCA is bad but that it's a mess. It has no identity right now. It isn't really California amymore... just kinda of a hodgepodge IP park. Even moreso thsn DHS like I've said because at least it claims the movie idea.

 

[bUU]

You think in such a linear manner.

Nonsense. I think in a logical and rational manner, unaffected by how much I personally like or dislike something.

At the same time, I sympathize with those who allow themselves to get tied up into a pretzel trying to rationalize how something they like changes without them being able to control how it changes. It must be very frustrating to be unable to differentiate between what's best for one's self as a fan and the decisions a company makes in the best interests of its mission.

Their recent reliance on established franchise does not have a direct result of guests' enjoyment.

Now you're just lying to yourself.

Dude, it’s the implication. Anyway, you’re too black and white to have a meaningful discussion.

Which is code for you realizing that your argument doesn't hold water.

This argument has been ongoing online since the rec.arts.disney days. The reality will never change: Fans have always been remarkably poor judges of what are the best decisions in the company's interest, and that hasn't changed one bit in the 35 years I've been involved in these discussions.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It is the poster child of cohesion.

It isn't perfect, but that isn't from being incohesive; that is from being underbuilt.

But every element of the park fits the park 100% (even Dinoland 'fits'... it's just bad.)

It is not.

There are tons of daily screwball ideas that come out of WDI...it’s part of the process...
But they are not greenlit for good reasons. No knee jerks.

Even though he managed to get it done against logic (as always...James Cameron), avatar was reactionary due to Iger’s intentional stagnation.

And Chester and Hester was as knee jerk as you can get.

That is not “cohesion”

I’ve always liked DAK...and I think it’s very close to a solid full day repeatable park...but fair is fair and it’s 21 year history year does paint the picture that they knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

She’s coming around though

 

[xdan0920]

Nonsense. I think in a logical and rational manner, unaffected by how much I personally like or dislike something.

At the same time, I sympathize with those who allow themselves to get tied up into a pretzel trying to rationalize how something they like changes without them being able to control how it changes. It must be very frustrating to be unable to differentiate between what's best for one's self as a fan and the decisions a company makes in the best interests of its mission.

A. This is a fan website.

2. Disney World from 1971 till now has been wildly successful. That doesn't mean every decision management has made has been a good one. It simply means the overall strength of the resort has been enough to cover over any mis-steps. In your "if this then that" world, even the mistakes are somehow purposeful and good. That's not how things work.

 

[bUU]

A. This is a fan website.

Which makes one wonder why people are attempting to discuss whether the decisions being made are good for Disney in the first place, rather than just discussing whether those decisions are good for themselves as fans. I know I know - it makes it sound much more important to say, "this-and-such is a bad business decision," versus saying what you really mean, "I don't like this-and-such." However, saying what you mean matters.

 

[networkpro]

It always comes back to a general conflict with all the freshly minted “economists” on boards - a lack of consistency. (Apologists for all mousing in wolves clothing)

Quoting widely know textbook or talking point Econ basics with the standoffish “this is always right” dismissal attitude. But also putting Disney on a pedestal.

The two are incompatible in many ways. Either Disney is a business...in which case it is simply about drain the money well as quickly as possible...or it is unique based on its history, success and place in the world.

One means all simple smirk applies - stockholder nonsense and justification for damaging pricing (in particular) on a long term trajectory. That’s cool.

But if the other is true...then their actions are not bound by “it’s a business” dogma. That’s not what got them here and isn’t what will keep them ahead of a pack of other 100% frivolous products. They deal in imagination...that’s their game. Any old suit won’t do.

I'd disagree with your extractive business theory as it doesn't bode well for an ongoing concern. You don't price your product so that you're sacrificing all of your customers' consumption for profit, you have to determine at what point you manage a rate of return that reaches your targets for operational revenue, capital reinvestment, and profit. There are always substitute goods in the market vying for those same dollars.

What some of us discount is which portion of targeted market segmentation that Disney is looking to serve. Aspirational vs Real.

 

[xdan0920]

Which makes one wonder why people are attempting to discuss whether the decisions being made are good for Disney in the first place, rather than just discussing whether those decisions are good for themselves as fans. I know I know - it makes it sound much more important to say, "this-and-such is a bad business decision," versus saying what you really mean, "I don't like this-and-such." However, saying what you mean matters.

I see you didn't bother addressing the second part of my post. So I ask again, in simpler, more linear terms for your sake. Is Disney batting .1000 in their decision making?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I see you didn't bother addressing the second part of my post. So I ask again, in simpler, more linear terms for your sake. Is Disney batting .1000 in their decision making?

Absolutely! That’s why they absolutely correct to avoid building attractions and are now still absolutely correct in their scramble to add capacity because their multi billion dollar avoidance scheme worked perfectly! Spending more for the same or less is always the correct business decision if you understood the logic of business.

 

[KINGLOUIS1993]

Maybe I over simplify, but in my opinion, I dont really care what IP is used as long as the attraction is high quality and is so good you want to ride it over and over and is BETTER than the attraction it replaced.

Do I miss Horizons? YES (see my icon to the left) , BUT I Really like Mission space and can ride that over and over.

As for UOE going to Guardians, I loved the ride system in the old UOE and if it was me, That attraction should have gotten an overlay, keeping that cool ride system, that said, the Guardians attractions looks GREAT and is high quality and looks like it will be so good folks will want to ride it over and over.

Lastly the TRON coaster! WOW that looks great! Again, I dont care about the IP, that attraction folks will want to ride it over and over.

I agree with all of this!

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'd disagree with your extractive business theory as it doesn't bode well for an ongoing concern. You don't price your product so that you're sacrificing all of your customers' consumption for profit, you have to determine at what point you manage a rate of return that reaches your targets for operational revenue, capital reinvestment, and profit. There are always substitute goods in the market vying for those same dollars.

What some of us discount is which portion of targeted market segmentation that Disney is looking to serve. Aspirational vs Real.

I’m not sure I disagree with you at all...

Though I agree CMB is chasing a “targeted” market...I Also believe it doesn’t exist. Just BS bob tells the board and squawk box till he can get out the door.

There isn’t an “elite” population to fill their parks and continue to glean profits off them. That’s a foolish idea from the start.